Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2019
Ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis using single-puncture, double-lumen, single-barrel needle for patients with temporomandibular joint acute closed lock internal derangement.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06657118 (Ultrasound Guided Versus Conventional Arthrocentesis in Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Internal Derangement), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Ultrasound Guided Versus Conventional Arthrocentesis in Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Internal Derangement: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of arthrocentesis versus other therapeutic modalities in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Systematic review and meta-analysis.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Minimally Invasive Interventions for Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnosis-based pathways for conservative and minimally invasive management of temporomandibular disorders: a scoping review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-guided simultaneous lateral pterygoid muscle and bilaminar zone injection to treat temporal mandibular joint anterior disc displacement with reduction.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Inflammation-related collagen fibril destruction contributes to temporomandibular joint disc displacement via NF-κB activation.International journal of oral science · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Use of Sample Size and Effect Size Calculations in a Temporomandibular Disorders Randomised Controlled Trial-Short Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Lavage Volume of Arthrocentesis in the Management of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Temporomandibular Disorders: Current Concepts and Controversies in Diagnosis and Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: Umbrella perforated screw technique.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTemporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc derangement is defined as a malpositioning of the articular disc relative to the condyle and eminence. Arthrocentesis of the TMJ is considered by many as the first-line surgical treatment for patients who do not respond to conservative treatment. The aim of this study is to assist needle insertion for temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis using ultrasonography. MATERIALS AND
methodTwenty patients who required arthrocentesis of the TMJ were randomly assigned to two groups A and B undergoing single-puncture arthrocentesis with modified double-lumen single-barrel needle and ultrasound-guided single-puncture arthrocentesis using modified double-lumen single-barrel needle (n = 10 in each group). The number of attempts of needle manipulation, duration of the operative procedural time, and visual analog (VAS) scale score for pain to assess surgical discomfort were the main outcome variables.
resultsNone of the patients in either group developed any complication with no significant difference in VAS score for pain between the two study groups. The number of attempts for needle manipulation (mean ± SD) for group A was 2.20 ± 0.789, and for group B, it was 1.10 ± 0.316 (p value, 0.0007); operative procedural time (mean ± SD) for group A was 18.5 ± 3.171 min, and for group B, it was 13.1 ± 1.663 (p value, 0.0002) which was significantly lesser in group A than in group B. The sentence signifies that the number of attempts that was required to re-insert the needle to enter the joint space in Ultrasound guided and conventional method of arthrocentesis.
conclusionUltrasound-guided single-puncture arthrocentesis using a customized needle is a promising method to perform joint lavage with minimal trauma and in a precise manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.